I sometimes think that the defects of men, and the virtues of women, are equally understated. An unreconstructed male will say that men have invented all sorts of things and built this and that, which is true. Feminists measure themselves by the extent to which they manage to resemble men, which is a mistake. Both largely overlook the gravest plague to afflict humanity: the infernal and irremediable aggressiveness of males.
When one speaks of being uneasy at having wandered into a bad neighborhood, it is solely from fear of attack by the males, is it not? If a woman’s car breaks down on a lonely road at night, she will be frightened of attack not by women or wild animals, but only by men. People do not avoid bar districts in the neighborhoods of the lower classes from wise concern about drunken pugnacious women. Men attack. Women don’t.
Physical incapacity has little to do with it. While the average woman cannot beat up the average man, three could, if accustomed to fighting. Women are neither accustomed to fighting nor interested in doing it. It is not by mere extended coincidence that nine of ten people in prison are men. The cause is their inherent aggressiveness. Theirs is the behavior of ownerless dogs living in the street.
“Hey, muthuhfuckuh, who you lookin’ at?”
Men, like street dogs, are both territorial and creatures of the pack. It starts early because it is instinctive. A boy of eleven showing up at a new school will be eyed by the other boys, tested, regarded with initial suspicion—but only by the boys. He earns his place in the pack. The girls are far more likely to say, “Hi, I’m Sally. What’s your name?” The little boys in a neighborhood form gangs, perfectly harmless in suburbs of the middle classes but gangs nevertheless, and guard their territory against intruders. They are playing, as puppies play. They are practicing for more serious times.
Come puberty and, in bad neighborhoods, things become ominous. The young males are now propelled by adult muscle and impelled by combative hormones. The Crips and Bloods in California, the Jets and Sharks of light opera, the Vice Lords, El Ruykns, Latin Kings, Black Gangster Disciples and so on of Chicago, the Hells Angels and the Confederate Angels and the Sons of Silence of motorcycledom: They are now dangerous.
They still closely resemble both street dogs and eleven-year-olds in fundamental motivation. They are intensely territorial. Members of one gang are very aware of the unwisdom of going into the territory of another. They have elaborate means of indicating membership in the pack: gang signs made with the hands, hats worn at specific orientations, jackets of particular colors, tattoos. The Hells Angels will beat you to death if you wear their paraphernalia. The graffiti sprayed everywhere nowadays in cities are precisely the territorial markings engaged in by male dogs, though the means differ. Despite the occasional stories asserting that girls are now forming violent gangs, they don’t. The appeal of hostile bands works its sordid magic only on males.
The instinctive (and sexual) foundations of all of this are obvious in other things. A young American male in, say, Asia, will find the local women willing to date him for all the usual reasons that cause women to date men. (Note the theme of West Side Story, which in this respect is perfectly accurate.) The local men will watch with hostility, however disguised. Males try to prevent access by outsiders to the women of their group. Thus they are less concerned about intrusion into their regions by white-haired men. These pose no sexual threat.
Within a society, the aggressiveness of the males can be moderated by rigorous enforcement of civility. In particular, the unshirted sexual forwardness of the male can be abated: A man in a suit seldom says, “Nice tits, baby,” or grab a handful, though both thoughts occur to him. This is why feminists are fools to deride the twin concepts, Lady and Gentleman. But even among the socially elevated, such street-doggery as dueling has often existed. The elaborate ritual of throwing down the gauntlet is nothing more than an elegant form of the gangbanger’s strut-and-holler. Hey, muthuhfuckuh….
The aggressiveness of males has wreaked unremitting havoc throughout history in the form of war. Women don’t do war, don’t like war, don’t fantasize about war. They put up with it. Lysistrata, though written by a man, captures the distaff mind well.
These days every war is said to have some justification of the most solemn import, but it’s just Crips and Bloods. Among primitive peoples a young man becomes a warrior through some curious rite, and then goes on raids to steal horses and women. With us it’s boot camp, jump wings, Ranger patch, and raids to impose democracy. The essential difference is as follows:
What we call statesmanship is, emotionally and morally, indistinguishable from gang war in South Chicago. The scale is more imposing and, under some administrations, the grammar better. Aggressive males rise to power in heavily armed countries of many millions. Then they push and shove, bark and bow-wow at others like themselves in other countries. The tribal trappings remain, particularly among the warriors: Baubles and medals and patches and different hats, talk of honor and duty and valor. Nah. Males dogs in an alley.
Women have very little use for it, though there is precious little they can do to change things. Their focus is different. In three decades of covering the military, I noticed that women thought in terms of people. To a male, a firestorm in Hamburg ignited by bombing constitutes a great victory. To a woman, it is tens of thousands of people burned alive. She is likely to ask, “Are we sure this is a good idea?” The aggressive male doesn’t want to hear about children being roasted to death and (I’ve been through this with them countless times) gets angry if you bring it up. He uses phrases like “collateral damage,” or says, “In war, shit happens. Deal with it.” Among men, “Anti-war” is likely to be an insult; among women, a compliment.
Male aggressiveness pervades human life. It fuels the unending drive to found empires. A woman might say, “Look, Alex, you’ve got a perfectly good palace in Macedon, plenty to eat, a bar on the corner, nice women. Are you quite sure you need to conquer India? What are you going to do with it?” Men are more likely than women to favor capitalism (or “free enterprise” or “unrestricted rapine,” according to your politics) than women because it sanctifies commercial combat. Fifty billion isn’t enough, I must destroy the competition and eradicate Linux….
What to do about it? Nothing, at least any time soon.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
DadWithGirls said,
There’s a large chapter regarding the reality of gender violence that is missing from your commentary.
Perhaps your comfortable living-with-a-fine-Latina lifestyle in a civilized south-of-the-700-mile-fence country has unfocused your logical senses?
Read Rachel Simmon’s ODD GIRL OUT: THE HIDDEN CULTURE OF AGGRESSION IN GIRLS.
Everything that you have overlooked about the sophisticated institutionalized misandrict violence of radical feminists is described in her examination of girls’ socialization to use
indirect aggression to assault men and still appear blameless.
“Male aggressiveness pervades human life…”
Yes, and so does female violence.
The majority of infants who are murdered are killed by their mothers.
November 4, 2006 at 9:19 pm
David R. Usher said,
Sorry, but you are wrong about this.
All major studies on domestic violence prove decisively that women initiate serious physical domestic violence in their personal relationships (both heterosexual and lesbian) as do men.
Men are often used by women to get even with another man, kill him, take his things for her, or go to war to get what women want. Such is the etiology of the feminist welfare/divorce state which is now a multi-billion dollar industry preadting on men who, since they don’t bear babies, have no right to do anything except lives as slaves because some women “forgot” to use her invisible birth control pills.
Modern feminism is extremely violent. The signs are everywhere. There are entire neighborhoods that look like they were bombed out. Illegitimacy is at an all time high. You talk about gangs. Most boys grow out of this and become husbands. But since this is not an option for many men any more, they roam in packs for the rest of their lives.
In states such a Puerto Rico, which have all the entitlements of other states but no reciprocal responibility, the entire country is a welfare matriarchy. No wonder guys don’t do anything except hang out. This is also beginning to affect Mexico as well.
Speaking of hard core women of violence, we have Indira Ghandi, Imelda Marcos, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Bloody Mary, Tz’u-hsi, Golda Meir, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Chandrika Kumaratunga, and Queen Isabella of Spain (to name a few).
November 5, 2006 at 12:32 am
amfortas said,
“let’s you and him fight”, game like the best of women, but as a man I generally stand for myself. What do you stand for?
November 5, 2006 at 1:18 am
Hal said,
Living in your little “socialist paradise” (mexican slum) has warped your outlook. Being taken care of by a woman is very bad for men. Just look at John Kerry. You’re sounding very much like him.
November 5, 2006 at 8:18 am
DadWithGirls said,
But maybe not so many readers understand that history of feminist exploitation of male chivalry?
Could you describe its context… what it means and why it’s important?
November 5, 2006 at 12:44 pm
christianj said,
“It is difficult in a column to address the missteps and tortured logic, let alone apparent cognitive dissonance that exists in Hugo’s world. A point by point analysis and refutation would be too long. At the same time, it is unnecessary, and even undesirable.”
I believe that this article may elevate Fred into the mystical realm of Hugo.
Sad…….
November 5, 2006 at 5:39 pm
amfortas said,
November 5, 2006 at 7:01 pm
steven deluca said,
Stay out of the bars for a few days. Male bashing is in but don’t go there. I knew lots of soldiers, you did too, most are not “for war” and you know it.
There are a few men who love power and war, but most of us, a good dinner, our children doing well, a loving wife, … that’s all we want, not slaughter and risk.
Steve DeLuca
November 5, 2006 at 8:09 pm
chas said,
Let Chas Copperfield unveil this great mystery. Religion and patriotism must be imposed on young people, in their public school system to give them the social order, of knowing what the right way is, when the right time is, to be defenders of the faith and patriots, to kill and die for God and country. It takes many years of intensive effort, to create a gentleman; it can never happen by chance. Your public schools’ stripping us of God and country, do not remove our drive, to kill and die for God and country, and make us all hippy cowards like you. It just takes away, the discipline of being a street dog, in a Christian way or an American way. They continue to be street dogs, but create their own, new religion and country, with their own laws, and will kill and die for the Crips and Bloods. It’s called freedom. The public schools, as they are now, can’t solve this; they are causing the problem. I have another mystery, for you to ponder; do you think these street gangs will protect you from the next Blitzkrieg?
November 6, 2006 at 8:39 am
stands2p said,
November 6, 2006 at 9:15 am
amfortas said,
Adult, mature men fight when they need to. There is no shame in duty, perserverance, bravery, cooperation, dedication and offering one’s life for one’s values, ones comrades in arms, one’s family, one’s country.
The small boy gangs are nature’s way of preparing them for a man’s work. Sure as hell the women ain’t going to defend them !
November 6, 2006 at 9:43 am
DadWithGirls said,
No one will ever read this, because it’s way buried in the backpages of MND’s always riveting threads….
But you man —
Have earned by your honest words, my utmost, total respect.
I could say more, but what’s the point?
November 9, 2006 at 10:32 pm